Keith Moore wrote:
perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
about the likely consequences of using them. and if you are in the
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but sooner or later folks are going to be held liable for poor engineering
or poor implementation of networking software, just like folks today can be
held liable for poor engineering or implementation of bridges or buildings.
I don't see how, as long as
Mathis Jim-AJM005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need to move forward with IPv6 both by deploying it in
the "core" and setting a time-frame after which non-IPv4
compatible addresses will be assigned. Unless there is a
clear reason to move, no one wants to change software just
to change. Once
"David R. Conrad" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, nostalgia. It's so nice to revisit old "discussions"...
There was a similar discussion here about five years ago where some people
proposed market models for address allocation and routing. Unfortunately,
it's not in the archives. If anyone has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran) wrote:
If steps are taken to avoid the development of a massive black
aftermarket for IPv4 addresses overallocated by IANA et al., by providing
the mechanisms of a "white market" -- notably a public registry of
IP address title, with an exclusive but
"J. Noel Chiappa" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There was a similar discussion here about five years ago where some
people proposed market models for address allocation and routing.
Unfortunately, it's not in the archives.
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder how many people are still using plain-text, non-HTML enabled
mail readers? It still happens on some mailing list, where someone will
send a base-64 encoded html'ified message (usually using MS Outlook),
and someone will send back "try
Jon:
personal comment
Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in
Masataka:
If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
motivate AOL to be an ISP.
Keith:
probably not. folks who subscribe to AOL aren't likely to be
reading IETF documents.
face it, it's not the superior quality of AOL's service that keeps
AOLers from moving
Masataka Ohta wrote:
If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
motivate AOL to be an ISP.
Why? Certainly, they are aware that they are not an ISP by your
definition. It hasn't changed their business practices. Why would
an IETF RFC change their business practices?
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the reason I say that your statement is content-free is that it offers
no specific criticism of IETF that can be used in a constructive fashion.
With respect to this particular thread, the only criticism I'd make is
I don't see how the draft in question
Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that
support frames on a dozen platforms. Folks that are unable to use
the Internet are not an appropriate electorate. Lazy kindergartners
are not the target
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a routeable prefix was given to every human, using a predicted
world population of 11 billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the
total IPv6 address space.
(The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
bits in an IPv6 routing
At 02:53 PM 8/11/00 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that
the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the
IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to
their "safety" for child
Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this scenario, and with all due respect to everyone's opinions,
policies that might have been justifiable some 10 or 15 years ago,
such as laissez-faire interoperation, conformance verification and
trust, cannot be justified by saying the existing system
Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The implications for this seem clear enough. It seems to imply that the
amount of traffic per protocol the activity goes on to generate is a
reasonable milestone for any IETF activity. This doesn't mean the POISED
list (or heck, even the IETF general
Bob Braden wrote:
Mark Adam wrote:
Ok... So I'm being a little idealistic, but this is different that just
saying Me too to the We ain't makin' widgets responses. Optimally we
should judge the work of a WG based on how well its output is accepted by
the world at large, but that's a little
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:11:19 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 07:03 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Without solutions to these four problems on the horizon, I can't
voice any enthusiasm that the larger address space in IPv6 will
eliminate NAT in home or enterprise networks.
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:49:17PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish
What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names
draft-iab-dns-assumptions-02
as an Informational RFC. [...]
i think this document is
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:23:31AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
I just came across a 1993 mailing list for the ietf. Anyone care,
before I delete it?
Is ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf considered to be the
definitive archive for the IETF discussion list? According to the
names of the
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:35:24AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
Since I have already received 6 requests for the 1993 IETF mailing
list, I put it up on the ancient history page of the RFC Editor web
site.
Oops ... didn't realize it was the distribution list, not the archive.
Since some of those
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 01:44:09PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
...at the cost of dropping legitimate traffic. the thing is, the set of
valid senders for you and the set of valid senders for everyone at cisco
is very different, and the latter set is much fuzzier. and
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 12:20:01PM +0100, Michael Dillon wrote:
In two or three years, IPv4 network growth will be severely limited. Any
business whose revenue growth is linked to IP network growth, must use
IPv6 for this beyond two to three years from now. IN order to
successfully use IPv6
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:43:38PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, David Conrad wrote:
How do you renumber the IP address stored in the struct sockaddr_in in a
long running critical application?
Applications that don't respect DNS TTLs are broken for many reasons, not
just
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:48:45AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
[sorry, lost attribution here]
TCP protects you from lots of stuff, but it doesn't really let you
recover from the remote endpoint rebooting, for example...
well, duh. if the endpoint fails then all of the application-level
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:08:38PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
yes, but do you think that was because that ietf was powerless to
stop [NAT], or because that ietf was willing to let consenting
adults try out new ideas? i was there, and from what i saw, it was
the former.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:29:34PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
asses every
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:30:42AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
Hi.
A little more background/context that got me here.
My original thinking was to do something like what ICANN and the RIRs
have done, to bring awareness to the IPv4 situation and call for IPv6
deployment. I think the IETF
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a question of ambition. At sixteen I was interested in mastering
the computer at its most fundamental level. I wrote arcade games in
6502 and Z80 assembler.
Today the idea of booting linux on a laptop would not make my top ten,
hundred or
doin enginering without deadlines or user
requirements. But that is not the real world we have to work in.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Greg Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 01:44 PM
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So online advertisers that are counting impressions and unique viewers are
just making the numbers up?
Yes and no, depending on one's POV. Some are using statistical techniques
to estimate the actual size of the population viewing an ad or a page
31 matches
Mail list logo
